Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Cockpit Video Recorders to become mandatory

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Cockpit Video Recorders to become mandatory

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd Apr 2012, 06:06
  #21 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A rather "delicate" incident recorded in a Cathay Pacific A330 flight deck resulted in the loss of the participant's livelyhood with that airline!
HotDog is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2012, 18:40
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are several camera angles which would be very useful to me as pic; wheels relative to taxiway edge, wingtip clearance, cargo hold to confirm or not smoke warning. Depressing to note that none of these are even under discussion while there's an unlimited budget to provide fodder for lawyers.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2012, 22:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany (SLF)
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And those CVR's were only allowed after their use in discipline/enforcement was outlawed by statute.
So why can't a similar use of cockpit video recorders be outlawed too? This wouldn't impact the safety aspect of these cameras in post-crash investigations and would seem a sensible compromise. Even though I personally fail to see any reason for pilots to expect some super privacy. Isn't a cockpit camera (with discipline use allowed) similar to riding with a check pilot every time?

Paying passengers on some airlines are routinely observed by a video camera from the cockpit door - should I expect my nose picking onboard the plane to appear on youtube too?
cockpitvisit is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2012, 22:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Only as stage 3 of a 3 stage process.

Stage one. HD recordings of HR department activities regarding treatment of crew.

Stage two. Ditto, for flight planning/crewing/maintenance

Stage three (budget stretched now). Low def video akin to petrol station (gas station in colonial parlance) monitoring. Super grainy pictures leaving much to the imagination.
Shiny side down is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2012, 02:59
  #25 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,149
Received 62 Likes on 50 Posts
SLF here.

I regret to observe that those who never leave the ranch (board members and their lawyers) will always seek to rely on automation / computers / equipment / machines / etc. to do their job for them.

If they were on top of their jobs in recruitment, training and supporting crew in a unique job (which they do not properly understand) then they would not need to shout for ever more machines to cover their @rse.

So - this WILL happen and it will spread around the globe. The only hope is that, once the equipment is being developed - you can at least get some cameras in the hold etc. The weight of these is now down to a few grams and the extra hard disk storage required is, again, very light and cheap. So, doubtless, mgmt will find other reasons to say no.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 23rd Apr 2012, 03:31
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stage one. HD recordings of HR department activities regarding treatment of crew.

Stage two. Ditto, for flight planning/crewing/maintenance
good one!

We can extend that to recordings of top management and board meetings:

'Who decided when, what, based on what indications'.

After all it's the shareholders money, the stakeholders pay and profit share and most of the time even the taxpayers money!

So if someone needs to be liable in a crash, metal or money, it should be possible to identify the responsible gals and guys.

After all we all thrive to improve safety in each and every aspect, don't we?
This includes my money!
Gretchenfrage is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2012, 04:54
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: anytown
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cameras in the cargo hold - good . Thermal imagers in the cargo hold - better. Seeing a 'hot spot' before it bursts into flames might buy some valuable time. Cameras enabling flight deck to have a look see at engine pods, landing gear, etc. - great.
Ac makers griping about cost and weight - plain bs. Every rinky-dink cellphone comes with a hi-res camera the size of a pinhead. Besides, with them ac makers experimenting with electrically powered wheels in order to do away with the towbars,tugs and taxi fuel, crews will need some good cams in lieu of a rearview mirror
stallspeed is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2012, 17:27
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,887
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Cameras enabling flight deck to have a look see at engine pods, landing gear, etc. — great.
All do-able technically and pictures could be a help to senior cabin crew in an emergency too...
Time taken to select an image and evaluate the scene precludes the usefulness of cameras in all emergencies though!

OK let me have my flight of fancy..
The camera wish list... select from below according to aircraft type
1 x each engine; cowlings, fluid, fire
2 x wings; flap condition and deployment, snow ice, deicing checks(?) fuel leaks
1 x elevators; snow ice, deicing checks (?)
1 x nosegear; tyre condition, deployment, brake fire.
1 x each main landing gear; tyre condition, deployment, brake fire.
1 x thermal cam in cargo holds; fire, security of cargo
1 x each passenger cabin; general surveillance including doors.
2 x wingtip clearance
1 x night/thermal/nose mounted forward looking; horizon of last resort?

A good image of control surfaces of wings on wide bodied aircraft need 2 or three cameras per wing...
The issues of lighting, glare, shadow and reflection of challenging subjects such as black tyres and reflective fuselage can be mitigated by using new HDR (High Dynamic range) imaging technology.

To reduce cockpit workload, cameras could be grouped into five groups; landing gear, cargo, control surfaces, engines, cabin. Automatically pre-selected into a group of thumbnails on a touch screen according to the phase of flight. Overridden if smoke and fire sensors in hold or engines are activated, whereby relevant cameras would be selected on screen.

The pitots are so important (AF447).... is a dedicated pin size camera/s with led a bad idea?.. would a thermal/night vision "horizon camera" have helped the AF447 crew? once they were out of heavy cloud?

One has to say that an interior shot of the flight deck itself would be the least useful in the above list
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2012, 15:50
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
What's the difference between universal gossip and a rumour ?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2012, 16:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to note, there seem to have been a number of recent incidents where a flight deck camera could have shed some light on why they occurred. In particular, in the AF447 and Ethiopian/Beirut situations the pilots were believed to be pointing at certain instruments and wondering "what it was doing" or whether its value was correct. A camera could inform us as to what instrument was being pointed at. In the Polish/Smolensk crash (and some others), an issue has been whether there was someone extra in the cockpit directing things or distracting from things. Again, a camera would have been highly useful in determining if this was correct, and if so, who it was. In EgyptAir or SilkAir, a camera would have removed all doubt as to whether the loss of control was deliberate, inadvertent, or due to some system failure or external influence.

While there certainly could be privacy issues, I don't think there is much doubt that for evaluating the cause of incidents, they would be quite useful.

Ducking now ...
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2012, 04:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,887
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
While there certainly could be privacy issues, I don't think there is much doubt that for evaluating the cause of incidents, they would be quite useful.
A camera pointed toward pilots would help identify who is speaking as well as being a pointer to the degree of turbulence/vibration. A camera pointed at the instruments would serve as a backup of sorts if the black box was not recovered. A CF solid state media card can be easily protected as it is so small.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 10:49
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A camera pointed at the instruments would serve as a backup of sorts if the black box was not recovered.
What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens when electrics or software anomalies creep in.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 12:09
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens
Really? Do you have any evidence of that?

What is recorded in an EFIS system is the output from the display management computers. What goes to the screens goes to the FDR.

The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.

What will be next? Caps with electrodes so brain activity can be recorded?
KBPsen is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 12:46
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Exeter
Age: 38
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.
Is it not fair to say that the recordings are used to better understand how crews behave during real life emergencies, and adjust training accordingly to help prevent mistakes from happening again.
mantisboomtang is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 13:53
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is recorded in an EFIS system is the output from the display management computers. What goes to the screens goes to the FDR.
Yes, that's when everything works.

AF447 orange box did NOT record what was seen on BOTH screens. Read up on the preliminary reported factual data . . .
GlueBall is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 14:40
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Saying

AF447 orange box did NOT record what was seen on BOTH screens
is very different from saying

What's recorded in the orange box may not include 100% of what's displayed on the pilots' screens when electrics or software anomalies creep in.
The RH displays on AF447 was never going to be recorded by the FDR regardless of the condition of systems or aircraft.

Yes, that's when everything works.
It is even so when not everything works.

The limitations of an FDR is the number of parameters chosen and their sampling rate. Both of which can probably be improved quicker and at less costs than installing one or more video cameras and associated equipment. Most QARs record more detailed data than the FDR already.

The desire to have cameras in the cockpit seems to me to be more about having the latest and shiniest tool even though it does pretty much the same as the old ones.
KBPsen is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2012, 16:58
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NW of Chicago
Age: 65
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old News

It appears that the article linked to the original post was written in 2004. I don't know of any recent impetus to install cockpit cameras.
fr8doggie is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 05:09
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,887
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Below quote is from the VS27 flight thread (which relates to a virgin flight turning back this month) where a poster describes action the crew took on a flight to Miami in 2004 following a similar smoke in hold warning.

After 15 mins, Aft Cargo temp remained absolutely constant (low) and as there was no sign of heat on the aft cabin floor it persuaded the three of us that perhaps there was less of a chance of a fire in there.
It is shocking that one has to wait for transfer of heat into the passenger cabin for confirmation of a fire in the hold?


Would a camera in the hold have eased concern in this case? or given the crew of VS27 confidence not to deploy the slides?
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 07:10
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The questions nobody seems to be asking is, will it improve flight safety or simply make life a little easier for investigators? Have the installation of CVRs prevented any accidents? Will the installation of video prevent any? Prevention is the supposed purpose of these devices.
Might well have stopped this one:

Link

But then the underlying problem would not have been discovered.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2012, 10:20
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KBPsen . . .

The RH displays on AF447 was never going to be recorded by the FDR regardless of the condition of systems or aircraft.
Without straining your intellectual capacity, would you agree that your own conclusion and understanding of the limitations of the FDR suggests that a video recording cam would have separately recorded what was displayed on the RH screen?
GlueBall is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.